Atheist: There are monuments all over that prove he existed. There are even places...cities, states, and universities that are named after him.

Me: So, you're telling me that having monuments named after you or in your honor validates your existence, scientifically?

Atheist: Look. I know what you're doing, but you don't seem to understand. History teachers teach about him all of the time. There are historians who have written books about what he did and how he led the country. People devote their whole lives to Washington's historical existence.

Me: I'm pretty sure I understand. I just wanted to make sure that when we talked about evidence and scientifically proving something, that we were using the same terms and using them the same way.

Me: Prove that God exists? Check this out and see if it makes sense to you. Feel free to ask any questions you might have in the comment section.

3 comments:

Me: That's fair. But first, I'd like you to scientifically prove to me that George Washington existed.

Atheist: That's easy. Open a history book, you idiot Christian.----------------------Already a straw man. What moron would argue that you can "scientifically prove" that George Washington existed, especially based on those crappy arguments you put in this imaginary atheist's mouth? From the beginning, you've made the atheist into a moron by assigning him a position that no intelligent atheist (anyone who understood anything about epistemology and philosophy of science) would hold.

Historical knowledge depends primarily on testimony, not on monuments and people devoting their life to his historical existence. No intelligent and informed atheist would call this reasoning "scientific."

And I've already explained to you how that alleged "Proof the God Exists" is circular and sophomoric. I can't believe you referred me to this page.

The point is that most atheists would say that laboratory evidence is the only admissible evidence, but we can easily see that historical, testimonial, and documentary evidence is just as valid when dealing with issues of origins.

(2) It is not true that most atheists would only admit laboratory evidence.

(3) Nothing you wrote proves that "historical, testimonial, and documentary evidence is just as valid when dealing with issues of origins." As I pointed out, your argument was a blatant and ridiculous straw man.

Either you come to grips with and concede your egregious fallacies or you continue in this intellectual dishonesty.